Advocates
of the tongues movement rely upon two sources for their arguments.
First of all, there is an appeal to instances of speaking in
tongues in the New Testament and, secondly, late nineteenth-century
and twentieth-century instances on a widespread scale are given
large place in arguing for the present-day resurgence of this
apostolic gift. However, it is rather remarkable that very few,
if any, of the writers of this movement refer to the grand stream
of church history from apostolic times until our present day
for proof of God’s plan to perpetuate this unusual occurrence
and to use it in the entirety of gospel outreach. The silence
for many centuries ought to sober many of the more vocal exponents
of this new movement, but it seems that a new doctrine has clamped
itself upon the imagination, if not the mentalities, of these
exponents. Simply stated, this new doctrine is that we are now
in the last days and therefore we should see again a special
reoccurrence of those things of apostolic days; gifts, privileges,
blessings, and “the power” which have been noticeably lacking
in church life for these long centuries. If this doctrine be
true, then God has kept from His people for these two millennia
the full extent of the workings of His grace, and the constant
gifts of the Holy Spirit (if these are within His will), resulting
in a terribly impoverished church to carry out His grand design
in this world. Again, this doctrine heightens the importance
of the days in which we live and also lends some plausible credence
to the centrality of the tongues movement if it can be proved
that this was central in apostolic days.

Some thirty-five years ago a distinguished American
educator, Dr. George B. Cutten of Colgate University, took a close
look at any historical instances of this speaking in tongues. After
thorough research, it was Cutten’s conclusion that in the ancient
church at least, the church of the fathers, there was not one well-attested
instance of any person who exercised speaking in tongues or even
pretended to exercise it. Here it possibly should be added that
in the second century Irenaeus wrote that he had heard that there
were some who spoke in all sorts of languages.

It is worth noting that his contemporary, Justin
Martyr, also “heard” of prophetic gifts, but he does not specifically
mention tongues. Another group of that same period was the Montanists
who are often alleged to have engaged in it, but actually their
sin, if so it was, was that of enthusiasm, ecstasy, and in some
cases emotional forecasts of prophetic type. Another group was the
Marcionites. Against them Tertullian alleged that there may have
been some instances of tongues. Origen in the next century claimed
that there were some prophets in his day who spoke in tongues and
yet the particulars which he enunciated would indicate prophetic
utterances rather than the use of other languages. Again, in his
case as in several, it is not clear whether these prophets were
within the orbit of Christian activity or prophets of other religious
groups. It was Chrysostom of the fourth century who attested to
the fact that speaking in languages had stopped altogether even
among fringe groups where suspicion had held that they occurred.

The Middle Ages constituted a long millennium
of darkness and yet the light shone largely through those of the
line of descent or the trail of testimony. But here we are dealing
with so much that is superstitious, mystical, inexplainable, awesome,
weird, and monastic that one must be extremely careful in ferreting
out instances of deep-rooted New Testament spirituality, and especially
would that be true in the case of gifts. Gorres has listed some
hermits by name who had a use of another language such as Clarenus
in 1300, St. Dominick, St. Vincent Ferrier (b. 1347), and even Francis
Xavier (b.1506), the last claiming to have ability to speak to people
of India. The latter instance is rather interesting because it was
officially sanctioned by Pope Urban VIII who had time in which to
lend ecclesiastical auspices to such a nebulous event while all
the time overlooking the horrors and wickedness of the Inquisition.
Here a statement by the venerable B. B. Warfield is helpful for
it was his scholarly conclusion that “pretension to possession and
use of miraculous powers in a permanent endowment are a specialty
of Roman Catholicism.”

The Reformation era was marked by a tremendous
outburst of vitality in grasping again the great, Scriptural doctrines
of sin, justification, the inspiration of the Word, and the true
nature of the church. Among those who have been classified as radicals
of the Reformation there are some hints of the ecstatic and the
uncontrollable. Some few among the Anabaptists have been charged
with this as in the case of the Munsterites, as well as some of
the hounded and hated Albigenses of Lanquedoc. In every such case
as this, however, one must reject these charges because all of them
are based upon the bitter hatred and intense dislike of these groups
by their enemies. Among the persecuted of the Reformation period
there were many who reacted violently not only to the Roman Church
but the arrogance and intolerance of main Protestant groups, and
in a time of great emotional stir and hysteria did and said things
which are not to be counted as in the mainstream of the group to
which they professed they belonged. Actually, speaking in tongues
played no part in the Reformation movement. This should give us
cause to pause and reflect. Thousands of earnest Christians all
over Europe sought to re-establish earnestly and completely New
Testament doctrine and holy living. Scriptures were searched diligently
by some of the finest minds that the church has known. Excellent
treatises were produced, outstanding credal statements were formulated,
and men set themselves to discover again the full-orbed teaching
of the New Testament. Not one of these even intimated that the doctrine
of speaking in tongues had a part in the continuing stream of God’s
work or in the present-day activity in which the Holy Spirit directs.

In the history of the church of modern times
in lands outside our own nation there have been a few scattered
instances when this matter of speaking in tongues flared into open
profession. In the last few years of the eighteenth century the
“little prophets” of Cevennes in France arose in which children
three years old and up preached, it is alleged, in correct French.
Their experiences were accompanied by faintings and swoonings at
which times they seemed to be insensible to pain and others were
unable to stop them from their strange preaching. The most commonly
known occurrence seems to be that of Edward Irving who was a London
pastor in the third decade of the nineteenth century. A very able
and successful preacher, Irving made a public declaration of healing
and tongues in 1832, allowing them as being in order at regular
services of his London church. Prophecies also occurred and Irving’s
views on these matters were easily discernible in his collected
writings. It was Carlyle’s eye-witness report that his views were
accepted by the “fanatical.” In another letter the essayist added
that evidently “God was working miracles by hysterics.” The London
Times sent reporters to watch the services and to look out for “ravings,
screamings, bawlings.” Of course, Irving was ousted for his part
in this by the Presbyterian Church but this did not stop him from
starting another, namely, the Catholic Apostolic Church.

Speaking in tongues is indeed a new thing in
American Christianity. The historically informed will not need it
to be repeated that in the founding days of our country our Pilgrim
fathers, Puritan leaders, Baptist preachers, Presbyterian divines,
and Methodist laymen did not at all indulge in this practice. They
indeed did have times of great emotional conviction and were moved
to show their convictions through their fervency and feelings. However,
they did not feel led of the Spirit of God to demonstrate this through
miracles, healing, gifts, speaking in tongues, or in interpretation
of tongues. Even in the strenuous days of the Great Awakening and
the days of spiritual heat of the frontier revivals these things
did not occur. Thousands were greatly moved, convicted of their
sin and sins but they found no expression of relief from these in
such as is claimed by Pentecostals today.

Actually, Pentecostalism began in the nineteenth
century. Two groups must be given credit here for the early occurrences,
namely the Mormons of Joseph Smith and the Shakers. It will be remembered
by the students of Mormonism that Joseph Smith believed in the gift
of tongues along with visions, revelations, etc. To him tongues
would accompany the reception of the Holy Spirit and would open
the door for visionary understandings and revelations. After all,
this is the way the Book of Mormon had come to him. Other historians
of this movement, such as J. H. Kennedy and J. W. Gunnison, relate
the unbelievable and weird episodes when this gift was claimed to
have been enjoyed with the interpretations that followed. At the
very best, one can only look upon this as the unbiblical braying
of wide-eyed and hot-minded men. Something similar took place among
the Shakers, especially with its founder, “Mother” Ann Lee who claimed
that she could discourse in seventy-two languages. The gift of tongues
was also accompanied by times of unspeakable joy and dancing during
which many of the hymns of this movement were composed, although
made up of unintelligible and unheard of words.

Pentecostalism itself cannot be dated much earlier
than 1900. Some did live before that time who claimed “Pentecostal
Holiness,” and “Pentecostal Fullness,” while others engaged in “Tarrying
and Speaking” meetings. However, very few of these things occurred
before 1900. A Rev. David Awrey of Delaware, Ohio, claimed he had
the Spirit of fullness in 1890. In 1897 a Holiness convention was
held in New England composed of “gift people.” In the year 1900
Charles F. Parham opened the Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas,
and this school held that the signs of tongues and healing should
be normal for the church. Then W. J. Seymour became greatly enamored
with the message of Pentecost and started the Azusa Street Assembly
in Los Angeles in 1906. This may be as good a date as any for the
birthday of the modern Pentecostal movement. One of the members
of this group, G. B. Cashwell, left Los Angeles and went to North
Carolina, and in 1908 preached at the annual meeting of the Church
of God in Cleveland, Tennessee, where the leader, A. J. Tomlinson,
got the baptism and the Church of God became Pentecostal. Even the
Christian and Missionary Alliance could not escape the influence
of it and in 1907 some tongues appeared on the campus at Nyack,
but A. B. Simpson refused to commit himself to say that tongues
were necessary. However, his hymns have been used by Pentecostals
since. The Assemblies of God have always noted their indebtedness
to A. B. Simpson. The first General Council of the Assemblies of
God was held in 1914 in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and from this has
come the largest group of Pentecostals in this country, the Assemblies
of God, which currently claim over one half a million members out
of a total of approximately a million Pentecostalists in the entire
nation.

It is interesting that histories of tongues movements
and Pentecostal groups do not go back much before 1875. Therefore,
it is admitted by all that this is an extremely modern movement.
It has not been, it is not, nor can it be based on church history
and a stream of witness to tongues down through the centuries. Indeed,
from a few instances of it in New Testament times there has not
been an occurrence of it since, unless allowance is made for the
rather spotty and questionable practices among some medieval mystics.
The voice of church history, when read in its total ramifications,
would indicate that God has been guiding His people and that He
has been teaching them His Word down through the centuries. The
voice of history also is that God has majored on those things which
are given priority in His own Word and not on those things which
men claim by experiences, however hectic or calm. The voice of church
history, therefore, is against the modern tongues movement and would
stigmatize it as being an unscriptural and unhistorical phenomenon
arising out of the experiences, tempers, moods, tensions, upheavals,
upsettings, fears, frustrations, longings, desires, and emotional
impulses so common in the last century.